Having health, armor and no headshots is just one of the myriad of things that separate Quake from the strafe & spray & pray games. Please don't mix it in your comparisons so lightly.
I used to play CS 24/7. Then I found Quake, was like, f*ck, you actually have to aim in here. Where are all the boxes?! How can I strafe from behind a corner if THERE ARE NONE?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So the removal of accuracy related bonuses like headshot's increases the aim requirement? Mind explaining that one to me?
<!--quoteo(post=1994560:date=Oct 21 2012, 10:45 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Oct 21 2012, 10:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1994560"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So the removal of accuracy related bonuses like headshot's increases the aim requirement? Mind explaining that one to me?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it doesn't, it just removes the one-shot-ability, which is a good thing. Tho the real problem comes when you have random spread and combine that with double damage boxes, result being lottery.
<!--quoteo(post=1994563:date=Oct 21 2012, 09:51 PM:name=Mestaritonttu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mestaritonttu @ Oct 21 2012, 09:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1994563"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No it doesn't, it just removes the one-shot-ability, which is a good thing. Tho the real problem comes when you have random spread and combine that with double damage boxes, result being lottery.
EDIT: Spread not recoil.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm inclined to agree with that, but I come from a similar background of fast paced, movement oriented shooters. The thing about games that have those one shot kill mechanics is they actually become far more complex because of it. The complexity this introduces can easily be seen in games like ARMA, or more relevant to my experience, DayZ (granted its tough comparing a game like DayZ to CD, but it serves as an example of the mechanic). In a game like DayZ, the threat of a one shot kill is so real that it shapes every encounter that occurs. It isn't good enough to kill your enemy quickly and accurately, because all it takes is one stray bullet hitting you anywhere, and you are down, and possibly dead. In games like that it isn't about avoiding being shot by using speed and maneuverability, its about never being in a position to be fired at in the first place. As has been said previously in this thread, games like COD and BF are almost entirely about positioning. Sure, being accurate helps, but more often than not you have made a mistake if you are simply fired upon, let alone hit.
The problem that arises is the fact that concepts like positioning and flanking are not concrete systems which make up the game world. Whereas how fast you travel or how high you jump is strictly set in stone in the code, concepts like where your enemy will attack from, or where he is looking, are completely abstract.
This is where this concept of skill or difficulty difference comes in. In a game like Quake 3, the movement system is tangible and can be mastered. It is set on rules which can be known, and thus it can be controlled, and control is skill. On the other hand you have games like BF which rely entirely on predicting enemy placement and positioning yourself optimally which is such an abstract concept that it is actually far more complex than simply learning a movement mechanic. However with such complexity and abstractness, comes great uncertainty and very little control, and without control comes a great deal of randomness, and an apparent lack of skill.
Now don't misinterpret what I'm saying. If you think I'm insinuating that EA or Activision made their games with these kind of intensely complicated scenarios in mind, you are very wrong. However, when you simplify a games mechanics, and make all players largely "the same", you move the complexity out of the predictable and programmatic environment that is the game world, and instead place it in the mind games that take place in such a level playing field. In my opinion, while I do enjoy complex movement mechanics in games, the most challenging part of any game is thinking intelligently.
Soul Rider, there were 1024 player servers for quake2, startcraft and UT were televised, HLTV ... sorry to say but Q3 stood on the shoulders of giants.
Imbalanxd that sort of intelligent positioning exists in every single game. The scale is just smaller. Okay, maybe it's bigger in OFP and Arma, but that's just a silly comparison anyway lol. :) When comparing the smaller scale shooters though, there's exactly the same positioning stuff in Quake, too. Maybe even more, considering the maps are strewn with timers for stronger/weaker buffs, for weapons better for different terrain, etc.
To outline it in a different way, and clearly state why I think no multiplayer game can be "dumbed down", I'll try put it in terms of a general rule.
When a person plays a game, they use *something*, the amount of which varies based on how good they are at the game. That *something* is called skill, strategy, tactics, intelligence, whatever, but a player has an amount of it based on how good they are at the game. For the sake of this post, I will call it "competency". Now while the amount of competency varies from player to player, the one thing that doesn't vary is that a player uses all their competency to play. That is to say that a player doesn't get "skill capped" because their competency exceeds what the game allows. There will never be a situation where a player has "unused" competency, and here's why.
In gaming, and competition in general, whether it be digital, sporting, business, anything, there are two aspects to compete in. The first is the obvious one, lets call it the "real game". In something like Quake its the shooting, the running, the jumping. Shoot better, hit more, kill more. Run faster, dodge more, die less. That kind of tangible, visible stuff. The second less obvious arena is the meta game. Tactics, strategy, prediction, intuition. Things which are completely abstract and intangible, but still very real and a very prominent part of any game.
Now it is possible to "cap" the amount of competency that can be used in the real game. You can only run so fast, you can only jump so high, you can only get 100% accuracy, and beyond that is cheating. However, it isn't possible to cap the meta game, or at least we as humans are not at a point at which we can adequately control any meta game in order to reach a cap. This means that once you hit the cap of the real game, you offload any remaining competency into the meta game.
So if you are playing a game like Quake 3, which takes so much concentration and so much skill just to master the aiming and movement, there is almost no competency left over to put into the meta game. And indeed there is basically no meta game to speak of in Quake 3. Everything that happens is all very real and very visible. You even get strange hybrids like SC2 which, as an RTS, should exist predominantly in the meta game but, due to its large dependance on APM, actually has a sizeable real game aspect to it. But you also get games like COD and BF which put relatively strict limitations on what players can do in game, creating a massive overflow of competency which can then be placed into the meta game.
As it so happens, this is also a very compelling argument as to why certain games are considered spectator games. Since the real game aspects are tangible and observable, games which focus on this part of a system tend to be much more compelling to watch. The meta game, on the other hand, is invisible and quite difficult to identify, which means that games which rely heavily on this aspect tend to be less exciting to watch.
<!--quoteo(post=1994579:date=Oct 21 2012, 11:53 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Oct 21 2012, 11:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1994579"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So if you are playing a game like Quake 3, which takes so much concentration and so much skill just to master the aiming and movement, there is almost no competency left over to put into the meta game. And indeed there is basically no meta game to speak of in Quake 3.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lol, really now?
<!--quoteo(post=1994579:date=Oct 21 2012, 11:53 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Oct 21 2012, 11:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1994579"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But you also get games like COD and BF which put relatively strict limitations on what players can do in game, creating a massive overflow of competency which can then be placed into the meta game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, so because COD & BF are faceroll, your MIND CONTROL POWER flows from your brain thru your spine and turns into chi which powers your meta game?
Come the f*ck on. Demands on your concentration does not diminish the amount of meta game, it simply makes the game more exhausting. It simply DEMANDS more. When I started to play Quake some years ago I wouldn't play more than 30 minutes, because it was exhausting, while I could play CS all day.
Oh, so because COD & BF are faceroll, your MIND CONTROL POWER flows from your brain thru your spine and turns into chi which powers your meta game?
Come the f*ck on. Demands on your concentration does not diminish the amount of meta game, it simply makes the game more exhausting. It simply DEMANDS more. When I started to play Quake some years ago I wouldn't play more than 30 minutes, because it was exhausting, while I could play CS all day.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Before you go any further, ask yourself whether you are a Quake fan, and whether your point of view may be ever so slightly biased. Its always a useful thing to do.
Quake 3 was all about spawn control, when a powerful waepon/upgrade spawned you had to be bunny hopping across the spawn as it did so that you had it and you opponent didn't. Quake 3 was crazy FPS skill combined with the ability to count really effin well and bunny hop like a sir.
There really should be no denying that Quake 3 was/is perhaps the best <b>DEATHMATCH</b> competitive game there is.
But NS isn't a Deathmatch game.
As to games getting easier, yes... yes they are.
Games are made these days from a checklist of things that work and somewhere in a room we cannot see someone decided that constant messages, achievements for breathing and graphics before gameplay is the way forward.
As I have said a billion times during the last ten years: Games these days are all Barbie and no Chess.
<!--quoteo(post=1994606:date=Oct 21 2012, 11:59 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Oct 21 2012, 11:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1994606"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Games don't lose their metagame as they become technically more difficult. What a silly statement.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You misunderstand, think of it this way.
Take a fictitious game that is 100% about aiming. It is called Aim King and every single one of its mechanics revolve entirely around aiming. How do you beat your opponent? You aim better. An accuracy advantage of 1% over your opponent can be enough to win you the game. The entire game occurs in the "real game". That isn't to say the meta game isn't there, but because the entire focus is aiming, you will surely lose if you concentrate on the meta game instead.
Now take the antithesis. A game which has absolutely nothing to do with aiming. You still have to shoot and kill your opponent, but the role which aim plays in that action is tiny. In fact an accuracy advantage of even 20% will make little difference. Now what do you do? Simply endeavouring to shoot your enemy before he shoots you will most likely result in a random outcome, which is not acceptable. So what do you do? Well, you put yourself in a position where your enemy can't shoot you, but you can shoot him. That positioning has nothing to do with the real game, it is entirely grounded in the meta game. The real game still exists, and you can still strive for 100% accuracy, but it won't do anything for you, so you move instead to the meta game.
It isn't about whether the meta game or real game exists or not. Good positioning and flanking still exist in a game like Quake 3, but it has almost no effect on the game. Why flank in Quake 3? To deal 40 damage before your opponent realises you are there? 40 damage which, in the bigger scheme of things, means absolutely nothing? Why not just endeavour to aim better and move faster? Why flank in COD? When someone goes down in 2 bullets and a split second? Flanking becomes your best option.
<!--quoteo(post=1994590:date=Oct 22 2012, 12:15 AM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Oct 22 2012, 12:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1994590"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Before you go any further, ask yourself whether you are a Quake fan, and whether your point of view may be ever so slightly biased. Its always a useful thing to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nope, I play Quakelive a few minutes per day. It's good warmup and fast to start. Have no other interests in the game, love the engine, community is utter garbage. That's it.
<!--quoteo(post=1994609:date=Oct 22 2012, 01:13 AM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Oct 22 2012, 01:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1994609"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Good positioning and flanking still exist in a game like Quake 3, but it has almost no effect on the game. Why flank in Quake 3? To deal 40 damage before your opponent realises you are there? 40 damage which, in the bigger scheme of things, means absolutely nothing? Why not just endeavour to aim better and move faster?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What. WHAT. WHAAAT? :D Why flank in Quake? 40 damage which means nothing? Of course it means something! It means 40 hp he isn't getting back! It means he will attempt to secure health somewhere! It means you can ambush him there! Just... What?!? :D If you watch tournament play, all they do is friggin' chip health from each other. You have to wait 5 minutes for a kill because they keep circling around, trying to deny each other armor, health, weapons, until one of them has an advantage and he presses it for a frag.
You asked if I'm biased, well, I'd like to ask if you've ever played Quake. :P
<!--quoteo(post=1994609:date=Oct 21 2012, 05:13 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Oct 21 2012, 05:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1994609"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You misunderstand, think of it this way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am starting to understand your point with this post.. semantics aside, I agree for the most part with you, Imbalanxd, and if I understand you correctly, a game with a wide variety of meta-game mechanics can increase the perceived difficulty level; especially when the core mechanics are fairly open ended.
<!--quoteo(post=1994555:date=Oct 21 2012, 01:21 PM:name=Mestaritonttu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mestaritonttu @ Oct 21 2012, 01:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1994555"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I used to play CS 24/7. Then I found Quake, was like, f*ck, you actually have to aim in here. Where are all the boxes?! How can I strafe from behind a corner if THERE ARE NONE?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you don't have to aim in CS; all you do is strafe around the corner, spray & pray, and you win tournaments?
Right...
If you weren't aiming, I'm wondering what exactly you were doing in CS.
It's interesting that while Quake challenges you to do things like move fast, weapon switch a lot, learn spawn and armor/weapon timings, etc. CS challenges you with that entire reduced-accuracy-while-moving thing :-) . You could argue that it makes CS more luck-based because of the randomness and headshots, but if that were so, why is it that some people are consistently dominating others?
I can't believe Imbalanxd is arguing positioning and flanking in Q3 doesn't matter after internetexplorer posted that Q3 video with rapha explaining the moves and countermoves in that match.
<!--quoteo(post=1994913:date=Oct 22 2012, 06:21 PM:name=Underwhelmed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Underwhelmed @ Oct 22 2012, 06:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1994913"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can't believe Imbalanxd is arguing positioning and flanking in Q3 doesn't matter after internetexplorer posted that Q3 video with rapha explaining the moves and countermoves in that match.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think he's given up by now, that was just plain silly to claim.
<!--quoteo(post=1994690:date=Oct 22 2012, 05:55 AM:name=HeatSurge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (HeatSurge @ Oct 22 2012, 05:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1994690"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So you don't have to aim in CS; all you do is strafe around the corner, spray & pray, and you win tournaments?
Right...
If you weren't aiming, I'm wondering what exactly you were doing in CS.
It's interesting that while Quake challenges you to do things like move fast, weapon switch a lot, learn spawn and armor/weapon timings, etc. CS challenges you with that entire reduced-accuracy-while-moving thing :-) . You could argue that it makes CS more luck-based because of the randomness and headshots, but if that were so, why is it that some people are consistently dominating others?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What I simply meant, is that in CS you can often "aim" by strafing, replacing mouse sideways movement with that of the keyboard. Meaning, you have to move your mouse very little, because often (like coming round a corner) you already got a pretty good idea about where the bad guys are. Of course there's plenty of times you "really" have to aim, like when someone sneaks up on you bla bla bla. But in Quake its like that every kill.
Of course there are people dominating others - I don't think anyone has claimed CS is all about spray & pray, it's just a factor that diminishes skill. It does not do so to a drastic level. But to a level that makes bunching games like CS & Quake to the same category just le silly.
Comments
No.
Having health, armor and no headshots is just one of the myriad of things that separate Quake from the strafe & spray & pray games. Please don't mix it in your comparisons so lightly.
I used to play CS 24/7. Then I found Quake, was like, f*ck, you actually have to aim in here. Where are all the boxes?! How can I strafe from behind a corner if THERE ARE NONE?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So the removal of accuracy related bonuses like headshot's increases the aim requirement? Mind explaining that one to me?
No it doesn't, it just removes the one-shot-ability, which is a good thing. Tho the real problem comes when you have random spread and combine that with double damage boxes, result being lottery.
EDIT: Spread not recoil.
EDIT: Spread not recoil.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm inclined to agree with that, but I come from a similar background of fast paced, movement oriented shooters. The thing about games that have those one shot kill mechanics is they actually become far more complex because of it. The complexity this introduces can easily be seen in games like ARMA, or more relevant to my experience, DayZ (granted its tough comparing a game like DayZ to CD, but it serves as an example of the mechanic). In a game like DayZ, the threat of a one shot kill is so real that it shapes every encounter that occurs. It isn't good enough to kill your enemy quickly and accurately, because all it takes is one stray bullet hitting you anywhere, and you are down, and possibly dead. In games like that it isn't about avoiding being shot by using speed and maneuverability, its about never being in a position to be fired at in the first place. As has been said previously in this thread, games like COD and BF are almost entirely about positioning. Sure, being accurate helps, but more often than not you have made a mistake if you are simply fired upon, let alone hit.
The problem that arises is the fact that concepts like positioning and flanking are not concrete systems which make up the game world. Whereas how fast you travel or how high you jump is strictly set in stone in the code, concepts like where your enemy will attack from, or where he is looking, are completely abstract.
This is where this concept of skill or difficulty difference comes in. In a game like Quake 3, the movement system is tangible and can be mastered. It is set on rules which can be known, and thus it can be controlled, and control is skill.
On the other hand you have games like BF which rely entirely on predicting enemy placement and positioning yourself optimally which is such an abstract concept that it is actually far more complex than simply learning a movement mechanic. However with such complexity and abstractness, comes great uncertainty and very little control, and without control comes a great deal of randomness, and an apparent lack of skill.
Now don't misinterpret what I'm saying. If you think I'm insinuating that EA or Activision made their games with these kind of intensely complicated scenarios in mind, you are very wrong. However, when you simplify a games mechanics, and make all players largely "the same", you move the complexity out of the predictable and programmatic environment that is the game world, and instead place it in the mind games that take place in such a level playing field. In my opinion, while I do enjoy complex movement mechanics in games, the most challenging part of any game is thinking intelligently.
When a person plays a game, they use *something*, the amount of which varies based on how good they are at the game. That *something* is called skill, strategy, tactics, intelligence, whatever, but a player has an amount of it based on how good they are at the game. For the sake of this post, I will call it "competency". Now while the amount of competency varies from player to player, the one thing that doesn't vary is that a player uses all their competency to play. That is to say that a player doesn't get "skill capped" because their competency exceeds what the game allows. There will never be a situation where a player has "unused" competency, and here's why.
In gaming, and competition in general, whether it be digital, sporting, business, anything, there are two aspects to compete in. The first is the obvious one, lets call it the "real game". In something like Quake its the shooting, the running, the jumping. Shoot better, hit more, kill more. Run faster, dodge more, die less. That kind of tangible, visible stuff. The second less obvious arena is the meta game. Tactics, strategy, prediction, intuition. Things which are completely abstract and intangible, but still very real and a very prominent part of any game.
Now it is possible to "cap" the amount of competency that can be used in the real game. You can only run so fast, you can only jump so high, you can only get 100% accuracy, and beyond that is cheating. However, it isn't possible to cap the meta game, or at least we as humans are not at a point at which we can adequately control any meta game in order to reach a cap. This means that once you hit the cap of the real game, you offload any remaining competency into the meta game.
So if you are playing a game like Quake 3, which takes so much concentration and so much skill just to master the aiming and movement, there is almost no competency left over to put into the meta game. And indeed there is basically no meta game to speak of in Quake 3. Everything that happens is all very real and very visible. You even get strange hybrids like SC2 which, as an RTS, should exist predominantly in the meta game but, due to its large dependance on APM, actually has a sizeable real game aspect to it.
But you also get games like COD and BF which put relatively strict limitations on what players can do in game, creating a massive overflow of competency which can then be placed into the meta game.
As it so happens, this is also a very compelling argument as to why certain games are considered spectator games. Since the real game aspects are tangible and observable, games which focus on this part of a system tend to be much more compelling to watch. The meta game, on the other hand, is invisible and quite difficult to identify, which means that games which rely heavily on this aspect tend to be less exciting to watch.
Lol, really now?
<!--quoteo(post=1994579:date=Oct 21 2012, 11:53 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Oct 21 2012, 11:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1994579"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But you also get games like COD and BF which put relatively strict limitations on what players can do in game, creating a massive overflow of competency which can then be placed into the meta game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, so because COD & BF are faceroll, your MIND CONTROL POWER flows from your brain thru your spine and turns into chi which powers your meta game?
Come the f*ck on. Demands on your concentration does not diminish the amount of meta game, it simply makes the game more exhausting. It simply DEMANDS more. When I started to play Quake some years ago I wouldn't play more than 30 minutes, because it was exhausting, while I could play CS all day.
Oh, so because COD & BF are faceroll, your MIND CONTROL POWER flows from your brain thru your spine and turns into chi which powers your meta game?
Come the f*ck on. Demands on your concentration does not diminish the amount of meta game, it simply makes the game more exhausting. It simply DEMANDS more. When I started to play Quake some years ago I wouldn't play more than 30 minutes, because it was exhausting, while I could play CS all day.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Before you go any further, ask yourself whether you are a Quake fan, and whether your point of view may be ever so slightly biased. Its always a useful thing to do.
you had it and you opponent didn't. Quake 3 was crazy FPS skill combined with the ability to count really effin well and bunny hop like a sir.
There really should be no denying that Quake 3 was/is perhaps the best <b>DEATHMATCH</b> competitive game there is.
But NS isn't a Deathmatch game.
As to games getting easier, yes... yes they are.
Games are made these days from a checklist of things that work and somewhere in a room
we cannot see someone decided that constant messages, achievements for breathing and
graphics before gameplay is the way forward.
As I have said a billion times during the last ten years: Games these days are all Barbie and no Chess.
2000+ kills with the MAV
This guy knows all about positioning.
You misunderstand, think of it this way.
Take a fictitious game that is 100% about aiming. It is called Aim King and every single one of its mechanics revolve entirely around aiming. How do you beat your opponent? You aim better. An accuracy advantage of 1% over your opponent can be enough to win you the game. The entire game occurs in the "real game". That isn't to say the meta game isn't there, but because the entire focus is aiming, you will surely lose if you concentrate on the meta game instead.
Now take the antithesis. A game which has absolutely nothing to do with aiming. You still have to shoot and kill your opponent, but the role which aim plays in that action is tiny. In fact an accuracy advantage of even 20% will make little difference. Now what do you do? Simply endeavouring to shoot your enemy before he shoots you will most likely result in a random outcome, which is not acceptable. So what do you do? Well, you put yourself in a position where your enemy can't shoot you, but you can shoot him. That positioning has nothing to do with the real game, it is entirely grounded in the meta game. The real game still exists, and you can still strive for 100% accuracy, but it won't do anything for you, so you move instead to the meta game.
It isn't about whether the meta game or real game exists or not. Good positioning and flanking still exist in a game like Quake 3, but it has almost no effect on the game. Why flank in Quake 3? To deal 40 damage before your opponent realises you are there? 40 damage which, in the bigger scheme of things, means absolutely nothing? Why not just endeavour to aim better and move faster? Why flank in COD? When someone goes down in 2 bullets and a split second? Flanking becomes your best option.
Nope, I play Quakelive a few minutes per day. It's good warmup and fast to start. Have no other interests in the game, love the engine, community is utter garbage. That's it.
<!--quoteo(post=1994609:date=Oct 22 2012, 01:13 AM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Oct 22 2012, 01:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1994609"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Good positioning and flanking still exist in a game like Quake 3, but it has almost no effect on the game. Why flank in Quake 3? To deal 40 damage before your opponent realises you are there? 40 damage which, in the bigger scheme of things, means absolutely nothing? Why not just endeavour to aim better and move faster?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What. WHAT. WHAAAT? :D Why flank in Quake? 40 damage which means nothing? Of course it means something! It means 40 hp he isn't getting back! It means he will attempt to secure health somewhere! It means you can ambush him there! Just... What?!? :D If you watch tournament play, all they do is friggin' chip health from each other. You have to wait 5 minutes for a kill because they keep circling around, trying to deny each other armor, health, weapons, until one of them has an advantage and he presses it for a frag.
You asked if I'm biased, well, I'd like to ask if you've ever played Quake. :P
I am starting to understand your point with this post.. semantics aside, I agree for the most part with you, Imbalanxd, and if I understand you correctly, a game with a wide variety of meta-game mechanics can increase the perceived difficulty level; especially when the core mechanics are fairly open ended.
So you don't have to aim in CS; all you do is strafe around the corner, spray & pray, and you win tournaments?
Right...
If you weren't aiming, I'm wondering what exactly you were doing in CS.
It's interesting that while Quake challenges you to do things like move fast, weapon switch a lot, learn spawn and armor/weapon timings, etc. CS challenges you with that entire reduced-accuracy-while-moving thing :-) . You could argue that it makes CS more luck-based because of the randomness and headshots, but if that were so, why is it that some people are consistently dominating others?
I think he's given up by now, that was just plain silly to claim.
<!--quoteo(post=1994690:date=Oct 22 2012, 05:55 AM:name=HeatSurge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (HeatSurge @ Oct 22 2012, 05:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1994690"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So you don't have to aim in CS; all you do is strafe around the corner, spray & pray, and you win tournaments?
Right...
If you weren't aiming, I'm wondering what exactly you were doing in CS.
It's interesting that while Quake challenges you to do things like move fast, weapon switch a lot, learn spawn and armor/weapon timings, etc. CS challenges you with that entire reduced-accuracy-while-moving thing :-) . You could argue that it makes CS more luck-based because of the randomness and headshots, but if that were so, why is it that some people are consistently dominating others?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I simply meant, is that in CS you can often "aim" by strafing, replacing mouse sideways movement with that of the keyboard. Meaning, you have to move your mouse very little, because often (like coming round a corner) you already got a pretty good idea about where the bad guys are. Of course there's plenty of times you "really" have to aim, like when someone sneaks up on you bla bla bla. But in Quake its like that every kill.
Of course there are people dominating others - I don't think anyone has claimed CS is all about spray & pray, it's just a factor that diminishes skill. It does not do so to a drastic level. But to a level that makes bunching games like CS & Quake to the same category just le silly.